What would be taught in intelligent design?

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
The battle ensues on whether to teach intelligent design or darwinism. However, say for the moment that intelligent design wins out. I am perplexed on what exactly would be taught for a length. Just the simple, "The universe is too complex for an evolutionary process to bring about such complexities" seems to sum intelligent design pretty much up.



I'm sure it could be lengthened but with some interjections about god and religion. Nothing is wrong about this, but to be under a science seems reckless. Granted, evolution is not 100% infallible but neither is physics but no one rejects physics. Even physics has peculiarities and inconsistencies, but these lend to our lack of understanding. Thus If ID was offered under an optional philosophy class that would be acceptable.



It seems evolution is attacked on its lack of evidence at points. Though we must admit, just because we have a fluke or missing detail doesnt derail the rest of the evidence.



Intelligent design arguments is like pointing back to how humans always thought about what they couldnt understand. The sun being eclipsed by the moon was thought to be some divine event or some shooting star crossing the sky must be a sign. What we dont understand is often deemed magic.



Lets be honest here, ID is not about another perspective it is about introducing god into the classroom. We are most likely the product of hairy mole like things that evolved into primates that finally emerged as humanity. I grant that being created by some designer seems much nicer than being the great grandson or mr. mole rat but our evidence points toward that.



I doubt any intelligent designer would posit skeletal records and give us a tail bone to muddy the waters about our origin.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    First the basics:







    Then some chemistry:



  • Reply 2 of 43
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Well i thought this link was interesting. When asked of voters what should be taught in schools, creation+evolution, just creation or just evolution, 71% of Bush voters thought BOTH should be taught, but when asked again 45% of the same group of poeple thought creationism should be taught in place of evolutions. This means one of two things:



    A. CBS is on crack.



    B. These people aren't playing with a full deck of cards.



    Or a little from column A and a little from column B.
  • Reply 3 of 43
    lupalupa Posts: 202member
    That is an excellent point. I guess the largest obstacle when trying to come up with a curriculum for ID in a science class is that Intelligent Design* does not really fall under the umbrella of supportable scientific theory. There is no way to test for a higher intelligence/creator type. The only remotely scientific things ID contains are arguments against evolution, although I can't attest to their validity or lack thereof.



    * Does anybody else think the name is marketing genius?
  • Reply 4 of 43
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Outsider: Excellent pics
  • Reply 5 of 43
    lupalupa Posts: 202member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    Well i thought this link was interesting. When asked of voters what should be taught in schools, creation+evolution, just creation or just evolution, 71% of Bush voters thought BOTH should be taught, but when asked again 45% of the same group of poeple thought creationism should be taught in place of evolutions. This means one of two things:



    A. CBS is on crack.



    B. These people aren't playing with a full deck of cards.



    Or a little from column A and a little from column B.




    C. Just using straight questioning on politically/morally sensitive issues doesn't produce accurate results (people just have a natural tendancy to flinch a bit with their answers), even if the surveys are anonymous. (I think this is based on the liszt experiment. Sorry, I can't find a link.)
  • Reply 7 of 43
    lupalupa Posts: 202member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    And then there is this effect



    Where is that from?
  • Reply 9 of 43
    Well, in the spirit of open-minded scientific evaluation, an Intelligent Design class would have to look analytically and fastidiously at all the world's myths of creation.



    It would ask 'Is the moon really a shoe with red dust on it?' before counting out the myths of the /Xam-ka !ei of South Africa. Asking "what is the evidence that the antelope herds were made from drops of blood and fat?" would count out the myths of the hunter gatherers of present-day Lesotho.



    Is there any evidence that whales were made from pebbles? OK, this counts out the myths of the Inuktituk people of the Bering Straits.



    Does man share any genes with bamboo? Because this would help us to evaluate if there's any merit to the myths of the indigenous people of southern Taiwan.



    Is there any evidence that land was made by the scratching of a chicken brought down out of heaven by the Great Orisha Obatala, who also made men and women from clay from the banks of the River Oba in southern-central Nigeria. Do we have any clay genes? Are there still the vestigial fingerprints of this god on us?



    Is universal background radiation the still-sounding 'Om' uttered at the first instant of creation according to Hindu tradition? This would be good evidence that Hindus have it right, and we can look for evidence of the giant turtle and the poison that Siva sucked from the swirling oceans.



    And then we can discount them all and uphold the self-evident truth of the Bible. Women have an extra rib. It stands to reason.
  • Reply 10 of 43




    First, the basics - the table of elements pictured above is an IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) table.

    Mendeleyev table is different as it group the elements of the first major 8 columns together. And there is a reason for it, but that is another story.



    Second - it helps to know the theory before one goes to argue and apply it to real life. Most people who argue about this don't know it.



    Third - theory of evolution, as developed by Darwin, has been refined and augmented by great many elements such as chaotic elements of evolution (such as Markov's prety-preditor models), an entire field of molecular evolution describing evolution of biochemical pathways, etc... so that the evolution taught in schools is a simplification that is makes the concept accessible to kids. After all we don't start physics by teaching the true kinematics equations with realtivistic and quantum corrections. We teach them simple classical newton's laws because you have to start somewhere.

    So there is no need to argue whether kids in school are being taught a lie... they're, but only because human mind can only grasp certain amount of material at a time.



    Fourth - Can evolution explain everything in the recorded history? We don't know. In particular we don't know because, in many cases, we don't know whether our historical evidence is accurate and is taken in proper context. Regardless of the reason, these arguments are so high level that it is silly to touch them unless you're a world's expert on evolution.



    Fifth - Intelligent design, as it stands today, does not follow the scientific method if inquiry. Thus it is, by definition, not a science.



    The end!
  • Reply 11 of 43
    You know, I was kind of hoping that someone from the ID camp might chime in on this as I suspect that many IDers believe that the vast amount of existing ID propoganda constitutes a curriculum.



    I was anticipating that you would get the standard arguments-



    Argument of incredulity (Evolution is just too hard to believe)

    Argument to ignorance (You can't prove ID isn't true)

    God of Gaps Argument (Look at all the stuff Evolution theory hasn't explained yet).

    Strawman (Evolutoin predicts 747s would just come together out of nowhere)



    Then there would be this long, muddy time in the thread where the nature of science was explained and a few IDers would regroup and try to sell some psuedoscientific arguments.



    In the end, however, we all know that you can't test a god. Theists know this as well as atheists. And the shell game of saying that it may not be a god, but a superintelligent alien is just silly.
  • Reply 12 of 43
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    ^ Well, I think that about sums this thread up...were it to progress on. Clever girl.



  • Reply 13 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nordstrodamus

    You know, I was kind of hoping that someone from the ID camp might chime in on this



    It is so much more fun to watch y'all patting yourselves on the back.



  • Reply 14 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    It is so much more fun to watch y'all patting yourselves on the back.







    No we're not.



    We're having a laugh at your expense, and jolly good it feels too.



  • Reply 15 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    No we're not.



    We're having a laugh at your expense, and jolly good it feels too.







    However it works out. As long as your enjoying yourselves.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    However it works out. As long as your enjoying yourselves.



    Don't mind if we do.



    Any time you want to defend your argument from our ceaseless mocking, or even answer the very sensible question posed in the thread's first post, feel, you know, free.



    Until then we'll carry on having a right old laugh at your expense.



  • Reply 17 of 43
    Oh, by the way, did you ever get round to researching Shetline's terms and learning anything about energy and order and randomness and variety and whatnot?



    I only ask.



  • Reply 18 of 43
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I'm currently reading this book and for beginners, is a good book on understanding the earliest forms of life and what needed to happen and what environment needed to be in place for the first pseudo micro-organisms to develop.



    A recommended read.
  • Reply 19 of 43
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Well, in the spirit of open-minded scientific evaluation, an Intelligent Design class would have to look analytically and fastidiously at all the world's myths of creation.



    It would ask 'Is the moon really a shoe with red dust on it?' before counting out the myths of the /Xam-ka !ei of South Africa. Asking "what is the evidence that the antelope herds were made from drops of blood and fat?" would count out the myths of the hunter gatherers of present-day Lesotho.



    Is there any evidence that whales were made from pebbles? OK, this counts out the myths of the Inuktituk people of the Bering Straits.



    Does man share any genes with bamboo? Because this would help us to evaluate if there's any merit to the myths of the indigenous people of southern Taiwan.



    Is there any evidence that land was made by the scratching of a chicken brought down out of heaven by the Great Orisha Obatala, who also made men and women from clay from the banks of the River Oba in southern-central Nigeria. Do we have any clay genes? Are there still the vestigial fingerprints of this god on us?



    Is universal background radiation the still-sounding 'Om' uttered at the first instant of creation according to Hindu tradition? This would be good evidence that Hindus have it right, and we can look for evidence of the giant turtle and the poison that Siva sucked from the swirling oceans.



    And then we can discount them all and uphold the self-evident truth of the Bible. Women have an extra rib. It stands to reason.




    This is just lovely. Hats off.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    Yes, hats off, and as a fan of idiomatic English, "Until then we'll carry on having a right old laugh at your expense" brought a gurt big smile to my face too.
Sign In or Register to comment.